United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office Accounting and Information Management Division author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 1999-01-27 monographic deposited born digital 51 p. GA 1.13:AIMD-99-20 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20 P0b002ee18038c0da f:ai99020 DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20 AIMD-99-20 Cost effectiveness analysis Personnel management Management information systems Defense cost control Commercial products Computer software Productivity in government Information resources management Civilian employees Privatization DOD Defense Civilian Personnel Data System OPM Employee Express System Y2K Letter Report AIMD Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to reduce the costs associated with civilian personnel management, focusing on: (1) how DOD determines the number and locations for civilian personnel regional service centers and why is there a wide disparity in the number of regional centers among the services; (2) whether DOD is applying the investment principles of the Clinger-Cohen Act in overseeing, managing, and developing the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS); (3) whether DCPDS duplicates the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Employee Express System: (4) whether DOD leadership is aware of the extent and cost of the needed modifications to the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software applications; and (5) whether DOD identified and mitigated the risks associated with the major COTS modifications.<p/>GAO noted that: (1) DOD's current initiative can potentially improve civilian personnel operations and achieve cost savings; (2) however, because the Department has not examined other business process alternatives that could have potentially achieved even greater savings and process efficiencies, there is no assurance that this is the best alternative for civilian personnel operations; (3) before embarking on its costly initiative to improve personnel management, DOD examined two alternatives: (a) outsourcing personnel computer operations to the Department of Agriculture's Finance Center; and (b) regionalizing personnel centers; (4) DOD determined that it would take the National Finance Center about 6 years to prepare for transferring computer operations and that some new functionality built into its legacy system would be lost; (5) however, DOD did not examine several other potentially effective alternatives, including: (a) continuing to centralize all or parts of its personnel management operations to reduce duplicative layers of oversight at the components and ensure more consistent operations DOD-wide; (b) integrating its personnel and payroll management systems; (c) restructuring its regional offices to serve multiple components rather than perpetuating regional offices dedicated to only one component; (d) restructuring local personnel offices to serve multiple bases or installations (they now serve only one base or installation); and (e) outsourcing all civilian personnel operations to the private sector; (6) these alternatives are feasible and may have helped DOD to achieve even greater savings and efficiencies than the current approach; (7) in addition, the Defense Science Board determined that integrating payroll and personnel systems was a viable and cost beneficial option for military personnel; (8) the Civilian Personnel Management Service (CPMS) officials who were responsible for the personnel initiative said that they did not consider these business processing alternatives because: (a) CPMS did not have authority to require the military services and DOD agencies to adopt such approaches; (b) DOD did not allow sufficient time to rigorously examine alternatives; and (c) DOD lacked basic cost and performance data needed to study the alternatives; (9) after it decided on its approach, DOD did not follow a sound process for selecting regions; (10) DOD did not adequately consider a full range of technical options before deciding to replace its legacy system with the Oracle COTS product; and (11) after DOD acquired the Oracle system, it did not mitigate critical technical risks. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20/html/GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20/pdf/GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20.pdf GAO/AIMD-99-20 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-AIMD-99-20 Letter Report GAO/AIMD-99-20; Defense IRM: Alternatives Should Be Considered in Developing the New Civilian Personnel System; Cost effectiveness analysis Personnel management Management information systems Defense cost control Commercial products Computer software Productivity in government Information resources management Civilian employees Privatization DOD Defense Civilian Personnel Data System OPM Employee Express System Y2K